California DOJ Proposes “Emergency” Regulations Regarding Magazines Capable of Holding More than 10 Rounds but None for "Assault Weapons"This ban on high capacity magazines does seem unreasonable. Hopefully it can be successfully challenged.

WHAT EXACTLY ARE WE PLANNING?

1) Legal challenges to the bans on so-called "large capacity magazines" and "assault weapons", as well as to the most egregious aspects of the new ammunition restrictions.

California Has Banned Possession of High-Capacity MagazinesThere are different rumors going around about the date on which this ban goes into effect. I've heard Jan 1, 2017, July 1, 2017, and Jan 1, 2018 as the possible dates. This is the best I've been able to do for a definitive answer to the start date:

“The bill would require a person in lawful possession of a large-capacity magazine prior to July 1, 2017, to dispose of the magazine, as provided.” There is neither any grandfather clause nor reimbursement. State law defines “large-capacity magazines” as anything with more than 10 rounds.

California Drops Gun Control Bomb–Announces “Emergency” Magazine BansI think this outlines the requirements of the law and July 1, 2017, does seem to be the deadline.

Under the new law, gun owners have six months to dispose of or permanently alter their large-capacity magazines. Pursuant to Penal Code section 32310, subdivision (c), a person who legally possesses a large-capacity magazine shall dispose of that magazine by any of the following means prior to July 1, 2017: (1) remove the large-capacity magazine from the state; (2) sell the large-capacity magazine to a licensed firearms dealer; (3) destroy the large-capacity magazine; or (4) surrender the large-capacity magazine to a law enforcement agency for destruction. Alternatively, gun owners may permanently alter large-capacity magazines by reducing their ammunition capacity so that it no longer meets the definition of a “large-capacity magazine.” By providing this information to the public in a timely manner, through the emergency process, the Department will avert serious harm to public peace, health, safety, or general welfare.

wildbill: July is enough time for a court challenge to be filed and hopefully a judge will order that the date be delayed until the case can be heard in a court of law and also hopefully the law will be ultimately nullified in one way or another as the result of the court decision. I know that's a lot of hoping, but hope is all we have left at this time!

Why California’s new gun laws deserve contemptA lot of gun owners are extremely unhappy with the passage of prop 63 and that's an understatement. Not sure if there is a legal remedy or not.

I do not advocate flouting the law. But nor do I advocate being naive. After July 1, tens of millions of illegal ammunition magazines will remain in private hands. And there is not much the state can do about it. That’s the problem with sweeping and arbitrary bans. People have a much stronger incentive to resist than to comply.

Maybe there's hope...

For another, it’s a fair bet that some of Proposition 63 and its related rules and regulations will not withstand scrutiny from a Trump-era U.S. Supreme Court. Try as they might, California’s anti-gun elected officials cannot repeal the Second Amendment.

mrfish: Will court action take place rapidly enough to nullify the July 1st deadline? It seems like it oughta be, but the way the court system works, you never know. How I can be deprived of the right to own something I legally purchased over twenty years ago seems like something out of a book by George Orwell. It doesn't seem like it should even be legally possible!

GOP introduces new gun silencer lawThis seems like a waste of time to me. I don't really care about silencers, but if they can do something about the laws here in California, then that would be a good thing.

NRA files second lawsuit challenging state gun laws, this time targeting ban on high-capacity magazines This has not received a lot of coverage, but considering that the relevant law goes into effect July first, it seems like it should!

A coalition including the National Rifle Assn. on Thursday filed a second lawsuit challenging California’s new gun laws, this time arguing a ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines is unconstitutional.

It's absurd that those who legally purchased high-capacity magazines should be required to give them up!

“Banning magazines over 10 rounds is no more likely to reduce criminal abuse of guns than banning high horsepower engines is likely to reduce criminal abuse of automobiles,” the lawsuit says.

NRA hits back in court over California magazine banHere's another article on the same legal filing.

In 2000, California passed a ban on such magazines but still allowed those already in circulation to remain grandfathered. Last year, Gov. Jerry Brown signed a measure making possession of even legacy “pre-ban” magazines illegal.